memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Spock/archive
Surname Does anyone know what are surnames of Spock and Sarek ??? PNA-incomplete Off the top of my head, his interests section could be expanded, or at least cited (doesnt like Italian?). Also, there is no info from Star Trek V, the references about him from or , and the paragraph from Unification is weak, at best. --Alan del Beccio 10:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC) ST2 Myth There is this huge myth in Star Trek, that in the second Movie, the Enterprise and her crew were assigned to Starfleet Academy, but there really is no truth to it. It is clear to me, that in that movie they were training a new crew for the Enterprise to be under command of Captain Spock. It is obvious if you just take time to listen to McCoy, "Admiral, wouldn't it be easier to just put an experienced crew back on the ship." If they were there to train cadets why would McCoy say something stupid like that? --TOSrules 08:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC) :I've always wondered about that line, actually. I think I agree, but only that the Enterprise herself was not assigned to the Academy. I think it's pretty obvious that at least Kirk was now working as an instructor at the Academy, as per his living in San Francisco and McCoy's line that he should get his command back. Whether Scotty, Sulu and Uhura were also working at the Academy or would continue serving on the Enterprise under Spock, I couldn't say. What does everyone else think about this? --From Andoria with Love 22:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC) ::Captain Spock indicated that he was "content to command the Enterprise," but only as "a teacher on a training mission...." When faced with the possibility of going on active service, he informed Admiral Kirk that it was "clear that the senior officer on board must assume command." Sulu's statement about being glad of any chance to be aboard the Enterprise, coupled with McCoy's line referenced above, suggests that the other officers were simply "along for the ride," as it were. Given the age of the ship, Spock's long-standing disavowal of a line command (see , and ), and the advent of the ''Excelsior''-class starships, it seems that the on-screen evidence supports the notion that Enterprise was a training ship and the crew was being prepared for future assignments.--GNDN 07:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Academy Reference? While I'm working on fleshing out this article, can anyone recall a specific mention of Spock attending/graduating Starfleet Academy? Presumably, he did, but I'm not aware of a canon reference. His eighteen-year silence with Sarek places his final decision to join Starfleet in 2249, and I guess is generally accepted to take place in 2254, establishing the Academy window. --Aurelius Kirk 13:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC) :Spock said he had John Gill as an Academy instructor in . I think that's as close to an actual mention of his attending the Academy as you're going to get. But you can rest assured that he did attend the Academy, and since he joined Starfleet in 2249, then placing his Academy years from 2249 through 2253 is canon. --From Andoria with Love 16:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Thanks Shran, I'll work that into my next revision. --Aurelius Kirk 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC) :::I know of two key references: :::* , by splicing to seemingly related statements together we get: Spock and Sarek have not spoke as father and son for 18 years; because Spock chose to devote his knowledge to Starfleet instead of the Vulcan Science Academy. :::* , the more obvious one: Spock had been a Starfleet officer for 18 years. :::Both episodes took place ca. 2268, meaning he started ca. 2250-- I'm not sure which canon source state 2249 to 2253. Add to that the fact that Spock served with Pike for "11 years, 4 months, 5 days" (with falling within this period "13 years ago" (per "The Menagerie"). Additional timeline references include a reference in that states that Spock met Leila on Earth, "6 years ago," and in "Journey to Babel", stated that he hasn't visited his parents in "4 years." --Alan del Beccio 03:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ::::All it says is that the date is when Spock decided to join Starfleet. "Enterprise Incident" (A Year later?) Spock says he has been in Starfleet for 18 years, since it is so close to the 18 year figure from the previous season I'd say that is starting from the academy and not graduation 18 years ago. That would suggest that there was a year of table talk at Sarek's house before joining Starfleet. Well that is one of many ways to explain the year.--TOSrules 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ::: I'm not sure where you are coming from, as I essentially said that, or at least that is what I meant. The 18 year figure would be the starting point of his 18 years in Starfleet, if he was counting the academy, which I don't see a problem with. --Alan del Beccio 04:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC) ::::What I am saying is that the JTB 18 years is only a mark of when Spock decided to join, not when he did join. --TOSrules 01:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Lack of info on what he did after life on Romulus How come there's no mention of what he did after Picard left him on Romulus? I'm sure there was a novel dedicated to the final years of his life. 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC) :That is why there is an "apocrypha" section. Such information cannot be included in the main body of the article as it is not canon. --From Andoria with Love 01:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC) Lieutenant Commander Spock Despite the fact that Captain Kirk introduces his first officer as "Lieutenant Commander Spock" as late as the nineteenth episode filmed ( ), there are several references to "Commander" Spock throughout this work in articles that deal with earlier episodes. It would be one thing if Commander wasn't linked to the page discussing rank, but the fact remains that he is a Lieutenant Commander until sometime in 2267, no matter how many stripes he has on his sleeves. --GNDN 07:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC) :I don't think so! First of all, there is only one verbal statement by Krik versus nineteen episodes with Spock wearing two solid stripes. Secondly, I think a single verbal lapse (intentional for some shrewd reason?) by Kirk is much more probable than a semi-military, well-disciplined organization like Starfleet letting one of its officers walk around with the wrong rank insignia for such an extended period of time. And even with wrong insignia for a higher rank! Thirdly, given the personality of Spock, it is not believable that Spock wouldn't have noticed the wrong stripes on his sleeves, and even more unbelievable that he had displayed wrong insignia intentionally. The only option seems to be to go for a uniform/insignia/rank inconsistency here.--Skon 18:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC) ::Well, canonically, he was a lieutenant commander until 2267. Dialogue tends to take prescedence over anything else. Besides, the full commander's braids could be explained by any number of reasons. Maybe he was up for promotion to commander but it hadn't yet become official until later on? Or maybe his status as first officer somehow allowed him to wear commander's braids? It could be one of those, or it could be another reason. Basically, all we can do is speculate (not in the article, of course) and accept that Spock was a lieutenant commander earlier in the series and was promoted later on. --From Andoria with Love 20:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC) :::Spoken word over visual evidence: Ok, but there may be exceptions to this rule if visual evidence is more convincing. But I agree that it's open whether we have such a case here. The conjecture that two solid braids have something to do with the first officer role has some evidence from TMP going for it. When Admiral Kirk assumed command of the Enterprise, he would suddenly wear captain's regalia, while Captain Decker was temporarily reduced to Commander, wearing two stripes accordingly. This seems quite weird compared with what we have seen later, for example in TWOK when Admiral Kirk again assumed command: Kirk stayed an admiral and Captain Spock was not reduced in rank. So maybe it was like this: Prior to TWOK, every master of a Starfleet vessel had to be ranked a captain and every first officer had to be ranked a commander. If that's not the actual rank at the time, you get the rank provisionally for as long as you're in the skipper or XO position. (But why were Constellation an Lexington commanded by commodores in TOS?) --Skon 21:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC) ::Apparently in the US Navy, which I almost joined as an officer, but didn't serve in, it is possible to have two officers on a large ship, like an aircraft carrier, both carry the service rank of captain. There was an example in Star Trek III where Commander Scott became a "captain of engineering" on another starship. So the Star Trek universe is a little inconsistent here. Both traditions apparently exist in parallel depending on the circumstances.--Sheliakcorp talk 15:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Plasma Conduits? I'm not sure there's any specific cannon reference to Spock repairing the "plasma conduits" in II. --Beyerku 20:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC) First Spock pic Since this is an article about a leading character in Star Trek, it deserves to have a clearer, stronger pic leading off this piece on the sidebar. Any takers on this? --Sheliakcorp talk 15:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC) :The policy is to have a pic from the character's latest appearance, and Unification is Spock's. If you can find a better one from those two episodes, have at it. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC) ::After discussion here I'm going to be bold and swap some of the pictures around. 172.202.99.244 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Madred) email link as source In the Diplomatic Career section of the article, there is a "mailto:" link. So... that is strange. --Bp 10:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC) :Right... removed & added . -- Cid Highwind 11:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC) Cage rank Does anyone know if Spock's rank is established in The Cage? The Image:Spock2254.jpg picture of him from that episode is captioned "Ensign Spock", but in the article about , the same picture is captioned "Lt. Spock". 01:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC) (Madred) Protection Temporarily protected from anon editing due to a spate of vandalism. -- Sulfur 13:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC) Spock's year of birth According to Star Trek Chronology, Spock was born in 2230, but that is only conjecture that is not based on anything canon. How was 2232 arrived at? – Enterprise1981 19:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC) :According to the 2232 page, this was established in . - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 19:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC) ::Revisiting this: What information from the episode is used to establish this? -- Captain MKB 03:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC) ::: This is only a guess, but judging by the citations, one way to find the 2232 date is from , which states that Spock was age seven during the events of that episode. Other lines in that episode also establish a divergence point (beginning when Spock died) at being thirty years ago, establishing an approximate timeframe between those events and "current" events (ie "in the past thirty years", "twenty to thirty Vulcan years past", "thirty years past"). Now granted, "Vulcan years" was thrown in there once, but that is an ambiguity that we cannot account for by the mystical ways of canon, as the length of a Vulcan year was not established, so MA has tended to take dates at face value, meaning 1 year = 1 year, no matter where you are (unless otherwise noted). By that, we can determine that age 7 + 30 years ago = 37 years from birth to "current", where 2269 - 37 = 2232. ::: To contrast, the Chronology s method of determination does not use the TAS evidence for reference, but rather bases the date of 2230 as being speculation, per the suggestion that Spock was the same age as Nimoy, as per a line cut from "Journey to Babel" that would have established a 2229 wedding date for Amanda and Sarek, then working under the assumption that Spock was born the following year. ::: The only other evidence I can think of, and its probably more speculative than factual, as I don't believe the mechanics of pon farr were fully established to support this, but based on evidence in , if Spock underwent pon farr every seven years, and working backwards from the "current" year of his pon farr, based on the episode date, then the years that fall within his cycle include: 2267 (age 35), 2260 (age 28), 2253 (age 21), 2246 (age 14), 2239 (age 7), & 2232 (birth). Anyway, that's all I can come up with off the top of my head. --Alan 05:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC) New Cast Seen as Quinto is already being credited as playing Spock, can we assume that that when and if the characters of the Original Series are recast for the new movies we put them up here as so. even though the movie hasn't been filmed--Marcos dax 01:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC) :Yes. That will be the case. As can be seen on the Spock page already. There is mention on Quinto. No pictures of him as Spock... for obvious reasons :) -- Sulfur 01:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC) ::But only those who have actually been cast, not just approached or rumored. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC) :::: Zachary Quinto has been cast to portray a younger Spock in the 2008 film with Leonard Nimoy reprising his role as an older Spock. ::: This information should not be added until the film is released. We applied this rule during the original run of ENT and have basically continued with TOS remastered info. Quinto and others should not be added until there is actually something to show for the credit. I've removed these spoilers pending the release of the film in a good 16 months... --Alan del Beccio 03:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC) :::: I don't know, this is a motion picture. People will come here, to see who is played by whom. Shall we wait till we get the first trailer or the first poster (featuring the names) to include the info? In Quinto's case, all is set an he will be the new Spock. Why should we wait till the release of the movie. If something should go wrong, and the role is recast, we can always change the actor's name. And if this about staying spoiler-free... I don't know. What is more important: Being up-to-date or not spoiling casting choices in the next movie? What do the others think? --Jörg 09:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC) ::::: I don't know about others, but I don't consider casting info as a spoiler. I have *never* said (or thought) "no, no, don't tell me who's in the movie... I want to be surprised when I see it!" Just the opposite, in fact... I *want* to know who's in the film before I see it. My two cents... -- Renegade54 13:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC) ::: If we are concerned about being up to date, then we can include it on the Star Trek (film) page, if we are concerned about being spoiler free, then we can include it on the Star Trek (film) page. I guess my biggest concern is treating this like it is already done, rather than merely in development. But as I said, the film is over 16 months out, it doesn't even have a title yet, it's not like anyone is going to be seeing it tomorrow, or even in a year from today for the concern to exist regarding who is going to be in it. I just think we should find a better approach for the inclusion of new tidbits than this "Hyena finding a scrap of meat to eat" approach that some, mostly new, and anonymous users are taking. --Alan del Beccio 16:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC) :::::That last sentence I agree with totally. :) -- Renegade54 16:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC) :I agree with Alan, this should be kept on , not other character pages. Fact is, Quinto hasn't yet portrayed Spock, and I can actually see putting it here as almost saying that he had done so. Keep it on the page about the future production. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC) ::::::For the record, Alan, the new film does have an official title: Star Trek (nothing more, nothing less). --From Andoria with Love 04:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC) Spock epitaph I believe all the main characters need epitaphs to sum up their place in the Star Trek universe; and as for an epitaph often being on a tombstone for those passed on, Picard rightfully has one, as well. Therefore, going on the slightly arrogant assumption that others agree with me on this principle, here's asking what everyone thinks it should be. As it stands, I have even more difficulty summing up Spock than I do Kirk. --ChrisK 07:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC) :"Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most... Human." -- Cid Highwind 10:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC) Removed nit Removed the following as a nitpick. It also seems more relevant to the Sherlock Holmes page than Spock, just IMO. In the movie The Undiscovered Country, Spock quotes the fictional character Sherlock Holmes in saying that "When all logical possibilities have been eliminated, whatever remains - howerver unlikely - must be the truth.". In doing so he attributes the quote to one of his own ancestors. It is unclear whether he meant to claim Sherlock Holmes as his ancestor (since he is half human), which could be excused since Spock is also a fictional character. However in TNG cannon, Sherlock Holmes is clearly mentioned several times as being a fictional character created by the famous author Sir Aurthur Conan Doyle.--31dot 14:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC) ::You know, Spock could have been refering to Conan Doyle. Hiya, Jim-boy. 01:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) katra "transfer"? If I remember right doesn't he "transfer his katra in to the other person before he goes in to repair what ever it is? If he really transferred it then how come he was still able to do the thing he nedded to? The only thing I can think of is that he put his katra into the other person then put a copy back into his body but that seems a little complicated to me. Perhaps he only put a copy in to the other person and he really did die. 13:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC) ::I believe Spock transfered a copy into McCoy, logically speaking, and so really did die. Hiya, Jim-boy. 01:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)